From Peter Ferrara:
“The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.”
So began Kurt Vonnegut’s 1961 short story “Harrison Bergeron,” published in the volume Welcome to the Monkey House. In that brave, new world, the government forced each individual to wear “handicaps” to offset any advantage they had, so that everyone could be truly and fully equal. Beautiful people had to wear ugly masks to hide their good looks. The strong had to wear compensating weights to slow them down. Graceful dancers were burdened with bags of birdshot. Those with above average intelligence had to wear government transmitters in their ears that would emit sharp noises every 20 seconds, shattering their thoughts “to keep them… from taking unfair advantage of their brains.”
Via Mark Shea, we get the following quote from this link:
If that is true, would the top 1% paying over 40% of the income taxes collected be a reflection of the injustice inherent in the graduated tax system or merely a reflection of the massive wage disparity between the top 1% and everybody else?
The story by Vonnegut is pure nonsense, since, while you can make a person less fast or less strong, in point of fact, you cannot make a person more intelligent or more coordinated. To do so is to raise their standard and this would argue against Vonnegut’s point – the celebration of the elite. Simple cooperation, as called for under Christian charity, is a much better way to bring good to the disadvantaged and the advantaged, since to those who have been given much, much will be expected. In Vonnegut’s story, the decreasing of natural talents does not aid anyone, whereas in Christian compassion, to aid one’s brother by means of one’s advantage aids both people. Beings were created unequal in talent and true charity is supposed to make up for this. Neither Vonnegut nor the author if the opinion piece really understand the purpose of charity.
The Chicken
I was going say everything that the Chicken said, but he said it first, so the comment belongs to him in the grand scheme of glorified iniquality, all I can do is second him.
PS the second line is a product of British humour, one area in which the good Lord gave as an advantage 🙂
The reason the top 1% is paying so large a percentage is because they own such a disproportionate amount of your country – and are demanding that your already-ridiculous tax laws be further relaxed in their favour.
I agree with all the previous posts. And honestly, reading such an article makes me more than just a little angry.
True charity must be voluntary. Coerced charity is not charity at all.
“…demanding that your already-ridiculous tax laws be gurther relaxed in their favour.”
Ignorance put proudly on parade.
I see the commies are out on patrol… The bleeding heart insanguinates the brain evidently.
I wish you would post something like Pope Paul VI’s Populorem Progressio instead.
Nice to see that for all supernasal superiority, the defenders of this drivel can’t come up with an argument, either, beyond the usual tub-thumping and accusations of communism.
Here’s a hint: Go and read Amos 8:4-14. You can serve God, or Mammon, but you cannot serve both and if you seek to conflate them you are endangering your souls and in severe danger of idolatry.
@Evarius,
So the government should be taking Mammon away from those who have it and giving it to others? I have yet to see your argument, though your initial point sure seemed counterlogical. My first response was, “Huh?”
Let’s be very basic here. First off, most of the people in the higher tax brackets aren’t amazingly wealthier than everybody else. My aunt and uncle, for example, are in a higher tax bracket because my uncle chose to become an engineer. He had to invest a lot of money in education, and his job was one where lives rode upon his work. Naturally they paid him a lot. They probably paid him at least 500% more than I made; but that wasn’t because he made the riches of Croesus but because I had a cheapie little liberal arts job out at the mall and then down at the office.
We each had a roof over our heads, plenty of food and clothing, electronic devices, an entertainment budget, intellectual enrichment, and freedom to travel when not working. I didn’t have a car or a spouse and kids, so my expenses were fewer. We both lived essentially the same American life, albeit his version had quality upgrades; but certainly I wasn’t at all deprived, or unhappy with my choices.
Unless you live in a “bad neighborhood”, get involved with crime or addiction or an immoral life, or have relatives who do, most Americans manage to have a reasonably princely life on a small income. Those who have more expenses or more ambition are more driven to make more money. Those who aren’t driven still do okay.
“Two wrongs don’t make a right.” If there’s an inequality of income, stealing that income doesn’t make it better. It certainly won’t make my life better. It won’t fix crime, addiction, immorality of life, or make bad neighborhoods and bad relatives vanish like a dream. (Unless we’re going full fascist-socialist, of course, in which case the bad neighborhood becomes the bad gulag, and new bad neighborhoods emerge to take their place.)
Income taxes do not tax wealth; they tax achievement. Wealth is taxed via capital gains taxes, which are much lower than the highest income tax rates, or not at all, if the money is in the right tax-free bond funds.
Many small business owners do their business taxes on their individual tax returns. Raising taxes on “the rich” raises taxes on these business owners, making their businesses less profitable, forcing them to charge higher prices (thereby you, the consumer, wind up paying the business’ taxes), making it less likely that they will be able to expand and hire more workers, and possibly forcing them to lay off workers or go out of business altogether.
Here endeth the lesson. (Those who get emotional security from engaging in class warfare will, of course, ignore it).
How true, Evarius. You should keep it in mind lest you sit there, coveting your neighbor’s goods and slandering him by claiming they must be dishonestly made, to such an extent that you forget God.
It’s worshipping, not owning, Mammon, that’s the problem.
Let’s not forget that the CEOs and their compatriots are the ones who got us into our current economic mess. If asking them to pay higher taxes will help us get out of it, I’m all for it.
And they did this, how?
Moving jobs to foreign countries, promoting adjustable rate mortgages and subprime mortgages that caused people to lose their homes*, giving themselves bonuses while laying off thousands of people… need I continue?
*Yes, I know, the individuals who signed up for these mortgages are partly responsible, but losing their homes was punishment enough, IMHO.
“Moving jobs to foreigh countries…” Whose confiscatory tax rates caused them to do that?
“…promoting adjustable rate mortgages and subprime mortagages…” What government threatened to charge them with civil rights violations if they didn’t?
…need I continue?” No. You need to educate yourself.